Pathway Summary
Consort map
Demographic information
## There was an error in 'add_p()/add_difference()' for variable 'fam_income', p-value omitted:
## Error in stats::fisher.test(c("20001_above", "10001_12000", "4001_6000", : FEXACT 錯誤碼 7(location). LDSTP=18600 對此問題而言太小,
## (pastp=70.1671, ipn_0:=ipoin[itp=71]=1, stp[ipn_0]=69.9036).
## 請增加工作空間或考慮使用 'simulate.p.value=TRUE'
## There was an error in 'add_p()/add_difference()' for variable 'diagnosis_substance_drug_induced_psychotic', p-value omitted:
## Error in stats::chisq.test(x = c("no", "no", "no", "no", "no", "no", "no", : 'x' and 'y' must have at least 2 levels
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 2501 | control, N = 1251 | treatment, N = 1251 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
age | 250 | 51.17 ± 13.17 (23 - 75) | 50.68 ± 13.45 (23 - 75) | 51.66 ± 12.92 (28 - 75) | 0.559 |
gender | 250 | 0.327 | |||
f | 204 (82%) | 99 (79%) | 105 (84%) | ||
m | 46 (18%) | 26 (21%) | 20 (16%) | ||
occupation | 250 | 0.711 | |||
day_training | 6 (2.4%) | 2 (1.6%) | 4 (3.2%) | ||
full_time | 29 (12%) | 14 (11%) | 15 (12%) | ||
homemaker | 32 (13%) | 15 (12%) | 17 (14%) | ||
other | 4 (1.6%) | 1 (0.8%) | 3 (2.4%) | ||
part_time | 43 (17%) | 23 (18%) | 20 (16%) | ||
retired | 61 (24%) | 28 (22%) | 33 (26%) | ||
self_employ | 8 (3.2%) | 4 (3.2%) | 4 (3.2%) | ||
shelter | 4 (1.6%) | 4 (3.2%) | 0 (0%) | ||
student | 4 (1.6%) | 2 (1.6%) | 2 (1.6%) | ||
t_and_e | 4 (1.6%) | 3 (2.4%) | 1 (0.8%) | ||
unemploy | 55 (22%) | 29 (23%) | 26 (21%) | ||
marital | 250 | 0.776 | |||
cohabitation | 2 (0.8%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (1.6%) | ||
divore | 27 (11%) | 15 (12%) | 12 (9.6%) | ||
in_relationship | 6 (2.4%) | 4 (3.2%) | 2 (1.6%) | ||
married | 76 (30%) | 35 (28%) | 41 (33%) | ||
none | 117 (47%) | 59 (47%) | 58 (46%) | ||
seperation | 3 (1.2%) | 2 (1.6%) | 1 (0.8%) | ||
widow | 19 (7.6%) | 10 (8.0%) | 9 (7.2%) | ||
edu | 250 | 0.690 | |||
bachelor | 54 (22%) | 24 (19%) | 30 (24%) | ||
diploma | 42 (17%) | 25 (20%) | 17 (14%) | ||
hd_ad | 6 (2.4%) | 4 (3.2%) | 2 (1.6%) | ||
none | 1 (0.4%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (0.8%) | ||
postgraduate | 17 (6.8%) | 9 (7.2%) | 8 (6.4%) | ||
primary | 22 (8.8%) | 9 (7.2%) | 13 (10%) | ||
secondary_1_3 | 29 (12%) | 17 (14%) | 12 (9.6%) | ||
secondary_4_5 | 66 (26%) | 31 (25%) | 35 (28%) | ||
secondary_6_7 | 13 (5.2%) | 6 (4.8%) | 7 (5.6%) | ||
fam_income | 250 | ||||
10001_12000 | 10 (4.0%) | 3 (2.4%) | 7 (5.6%) | ||
12001_14000 | 12 (4.8%) | 4 (3.2%) | 8 (6.4%) | ||
14001_16000 | 12 (4.8%) | 4 (3.2%) | 8 (6.4%) | ||
16001_18000 | 5 (2.0%) | 3 (2.4%) | 2 (1.6%) | ||
18001_20000 | 12 (4.8%) | 8 (6.4%) | 4 (3.2%) | ||
20001_above | 43 (17%) | 26 (21%) | 17 (14%) | ||
2001_4000 | 37 (15%) | 18 (14%) | 19 (15%) | ||
4001_6000 | 31 (12%) | 14 (11%) | 17 (14%) | ||
6001_8000 | 22 (8.8%) | 13 (10%) | 9 (7.2%) | ||
8001_10000 | 20 (8.0%) | 11 (8.8%) | 9 (7.2%) | ||
below_2000 | 46 (18%) | 21 (17%) | 25 (20%) | ||
medication | 250 | 224 (90%) | 112 (90%) | 112 (90%) | >0.999 |
onset_duration | 250 | 15.13 ± 11.18 (0 - 63) | 14.96 ± 11.83 (0 - 56) | 15.29 ± 10.53 (0 - 63) | 0.814 |
onset_age | 250 | 36.04 ± 14.80 (-18 - 72) | 35.72 ± 13.96 (10 - 72) | 36.37 ± 15.65 (-18 - 68) | 0.732 |
diagnosis_schizophrenia | 250 | 50 (20%) | 25 (20%) | 25 (20%) | >0.999 |
diagnosis_delusional | 250 | 13 (5.2%) | 7 (5.6%) | 6 (4.8%) | 0.776 |
diagnosis_schizoaffective | 250 | 1 (0.4%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (0.8%) | >0.999 |
diagnosis_schizoid | 250 | 1 (0.4%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (0.8%) | >0.999 |
diagnosis_transient_psychotic | 250 | 2 (0.8%) | 1 (0.8%) | 1 (0.8%) | >0.999 |
diagnosis_substance_drug_induced_psychotic | 250 | ||||
no | 250 (100%) | 125 (100%) | 125 (100%) | ||
diagnosis_depression | 250 | 138 (55%) | 69 (55%) | 69 (55%) | >0.999 |
diagnosis_bipolar | 250 | 24 (9.6%) | 10 (8.0%) | 14 (11%) | 0.390 |
diagnosis_anxiety | 250 | 87 (35%) | 46 (37%) | 41 (33%) | 0.507 |
diagnosis_phobia | 250 | 10 (4.0%) | 3 (2.4%) | 7 (5.6%) | 0.197 |
diagnosis_personality_disorders | 250 | 3 (1.2%) | 0 (0%) | 3 (2.4%) | 0.247 |
diagnosis_substance_related_addictive | 250 | 1 (0.4%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (0.8%) | >0.999 |
diagnosis_other | 250 | 29 (12%) | 17 (14%) | 12 (9.6%) | 0.323 |
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test | |||||
Measurement
Table
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 2501 | control, N = 1251 | treatment, N = 1251 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | 250 | 3.14 ± 1.21 (1 - 5) | 3.20 ± 1.20 (1 - 5) | 3.07 ± 1.23 (1 - 5) | 0.406 |
recovery_stage_b | 250 | 17.84 ± 3.03 (4 - 24) | 17.88 ± 3.28 (4 - 24) | 17.80 ± 2.78 (9 - 24) | 0.835 |
ras_confidence | 250 | 29.86 ± 5.62 (9 - 45) | 29.69 ± 5.78 (9 - 45) | 30.02 ± 5.47 (9 - 45) | 0.637 |
ras_willingness | 250 | 11.64 ± 2.11 (3 - 15) | 11.62 ± 2.08 (5 - 15) | 11.66 ± 2.14 (3 - 15) | 0.905 |
ras_goal | 250 | 17.36 ± 3.32 (5 - 25) | 17.18 ± 3.30 (5 - 25) | 17.53 ± 3.33 (5 - 25) | 0.413 |
ras_reliance | 250 | 13.24 ± 2.88 (4 - 20) | 13.14 ± 2.81 (5 - 20) | 13.33 ± 2.95 (4 - 20) | 0.614 |
ras_domination | 250 | 9.76 ± 2.45 (3 - 15) | 9.95 ± 2.43 (3 - 15) | 9.56 ± 2.46 (3 - 15) | 0.206 |
symptom | 250 | 30.85 ± 9.83 (14 - 70) | 31.50 ± 10.44 (14 - 70) | 30.21 ± 9.18 (14 - 56) | 0.301 |
slof_work | 250 | 22.06 ± 4.64 (10 - 30) | 22.06 ± 4.44 (12 - 30) | 22.06 ± 4.86 (10 - 30) | 0.989 |
slof_relationship | 250 | 24.92 ± 5.79 (9 - 35) | 24.50 ± 5.77 (9 - 35) | 25.34 ± 5.79 (11 - 35) | 0.252 |
satisfaction | 250 | 20.35 ± 7.25 (5 - 35) | 19.66 ± 7.28 (5 - 35) | 21.03 ± 7.18 (5 - 35) | 0.136 |
mhc_emotional | 250 | 10.82 ± 3.75 (3 - 19) | 10.65 ± 3.79 (3 - 18) | 11.00 ± 3.71 (3 - 19) | 0.459 |
mhc_social | 250 | 15.13 ± 6.02 (5 - 30) | 15.13 ± 6.09 (5 - 30) | 15.13 ± 5.97 (5 - 30) | >0.999 |
mhc_psychological | 250 | 21.71 ± 6.90 (6 - 36) | 21.55 ± 6.89 (6 - 36) | 21.87 ± 6.93 (6 - 36) | 0.715 |
resilisnce | 250 | 16.56 ± 4.44 (6 - 30) | 16.18 ± 4.25 (6 - 30) | 16.94 ± 4.61 (6 - 30) | 0.177 |
social_provision | 250 | 13.54 ± 2.75 (5 - 20) | 13.17 ± 2.70 (5 - 20) | 13.91 ± 2.77 (5 - 20) | 0.032 |
els_value_living | 250 | 16.96 ± 3.18 (5 - 25) | 16.76 ± 3.18 (6 - 25) | 17.15 ± 3.19 (5 - 25) | 0.331 |
els_life_fulfill | 250 | 12.76 ± 3.35 (4 - 20) | 12.41 ± 3.45 (4 - 20) | 13.10 ± 3.21 (4 - 20) | 0.100 |
els | 250 | 29.71 ± 6.03 (9 - 45) | 29.17 ± 6.13 (11 - 45) | 30.26 ± 5.90 (9 - 45) | 0.154 |
social_connect | 250 | 27.27 ± 9.12 (8 - 48) | 27.88 ± 9.05 (8 - 48) | 26.66 ± 9.18 (8 - 48) | 0.293 |
shs_agency | 250 | 14.34 ± 4.99 (3 - 24) | 13.84 ± 5.02 (3 - 24) | 14.85 ± 4.94 (3 - 24) | 0.110 |
shs_pathway | 250 | 15.83 ± 4.19 (3 - 24) | 15.33 ± 4.35 (3 - 24) | 16.34 ± 3.99 (4 - 24) | 0.057 |
shs | 250 | 30.18 ± 8.79 (6 - 48) | 29.17 ± 8.98 (6 - 48) | 31.18 ± 8.51 (7 - 48) | 0.070 |
esteem | 250 | 12.76 ± 1.66 (9 - 20) | 12.80 ± 1.71 (9 - 20) | 12.73 ± 1.60 (10 - 20) | 0.732 |
mlq_search | 250 | 14.72 ± 3.51 (3 - 21) | 14.36 ± 3.58 (3 - 21) | 15.08 ± 3.41 (3 - 21) | 0.105 |
mlq_presence | 250 | 13.38 ± 4.31 (3 - 21) | 13.15 ± 4.26 (3 - 21) | 13.62 ± 4.36 (3 - 21) | 0.396 |
mlq | 250 | 28.10 ± 7.01 (6 - 42) | 27.51 ± 7.05 (6 - 42) | 28.70 ± 6.96 (6 - 42) | 0.183 |
empower | 250 | 19.11 ± 4.47 (6 - 30) | 18.85 ± 4.50 (6 - 30) | 19.38 ± 4.44 (6 - 30) | 0.351 |
ismi_resistance | 250 | 14.36 ± 2.60 (5 - 20) | 14.36 ± 2.52 (6 - 20) | 14.35 ± 2.70 (5 - 20) | 0.981 |
ismi_discrimation | 250 | 11.75 ± 3.10 (5 - 20) | 11.79 ± 3.09 (5 - 20) | 11.70 ± 3.12 (5 - 20) | 0.823 |
sss_affective | 250 | 10.51 ± 3.66 (3 - 18) | 10.40 ± 3.63 (3 - 18) | 10.62 ± 3.71 (3 - 18) | 0.629 |
sss_behavior | 250 | 10.14 ± 3.76 (3 - 18) | 10.18 ± 3.81 (3 - 18) | 10.10 ± 3.72 (3 - 18) | 0.867 |
sss_cognitive | 250 | 8.92 ± 3.84 (3 - 18) | 8.71 ± 3.82 (3 - 18) | 9.12 ± 3.87 (3 - 18) | 0.402 |
sss | 250 | 29.56 ± 10.61 (9 - 54) | 29.29 ± 10.63 (9 - 54) | 29.84 ± 10.63 (9 - 54) | 0.682 |
1Mean ± SD (Range) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test | |||||
Plot
Data analysis
Table
Group | Characteristic | Beta | SE1 | 95% CI1 | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | (Intercept) | 3.20 | 0.108 | 2.99, 3.41 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.128 | 0.153 | -0.428, 0.172 | 0.404 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.030 | 0.131 | -0.227, 0.287 | 0.819 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.188 | 0.189 | -0.182, 0.558 | 0.321 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.004 | ||||
recovery_stage_b | (Intercept) | 17.9 | 0.269 | 17.4, 18.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.080 | 0.380 | -0.825, 0.665 | 0.833 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.158 | 0.237 | -0.623, 0.306 | 0.505 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.02 | 0.343 | 0.351, 1.70 | 0.003 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.014 | ||||
ras_confidence | (Intercept) | 29.7 | 0.502 | 28.7, 30.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.336 | 0.710 | -1.06, 1.73 | 0.637 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.694 | 0.388 | -0.067, 1.45 | 0.075 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.08 | 0.562 | -0.026, 2.18 | 0.057 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.019 | ||||
ras_willingness | (Intercept) | 11.6 | 0.182 | 11.3, 12.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.032 | 0.258 | -0.473, 0.537 | 0.901 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.043 | 0.169 | -0.288, 0.374 | 0.798 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.270 | 0.244 | -0.209, 0.749 | 0.270 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.004 | ||||
ras_goal | (Intercept) | 17.2 | 0.290 | 16.6, 17.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.344 | 0.410 | -0.460, 1.15 | 0.402 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.409 | 0.247 | -0.075, 0.893 | 0.099 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.416 | 0.358 | -0.285, 1.12 | 0.246 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.016 | ||||
ras_reliance | (Intercept) | 13.1 | 0.263 | 12.6, 13.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.184 | 0.372 | -0.544, 0.912 | 0.621 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.343 | 0.201 | -0.051, 0.736 | 0.089 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.303 | 0.291 | -0.267, 0.873 | 0.298 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
ras_domination | (Intercept) | 9.95 | 0.213 | 9.53, 10.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.392 | 0.301 | -0.983, 0.199 | 0.194 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.119 | 0.209 | -0.290, 0.529 | 0.569 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.766 | 0.302 | 0.174, 1.36 | 0.012 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.017 | ||||
symptom | (Intercept) | 31.5 | 0.875 | 29.8, 33.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.29 | 1.238 | -3.71, 1.14 | 0.299 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.44 | 0.623 | -2.66, -0.215 | 0.022 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.202 | 0.903 | -1.97, 1.57 | 0.823 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.011 | ||||
slof_work | (Intercept) | 22.1 | 0.409 | 21.3, 22.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.008 | 0.578 | -1.14, 1.13 | 0.989 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.433 | 0.333 | -0.220, 1.09 | 0.195 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.064 | 0.483 | -0.882, 1.01 | 0.895 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.003 | ||||
slof_relationship | (Intercept) | 24.5 | 0.513 | 23.5, 25.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.840 | 0.725 | -0.581, 2.26 | 0.247 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.477 | 0.402 | -0.310, 1.26 | 0.236 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.252 | 0.582 | -0.888, 1.39 | 0.665 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
satisfaction | (Intercept) | 19.7 | 0.642 | 18.4, 20.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.37 | 0.908 | -0.411, 3.15 | 0.133 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.30 | 0.473 | 0.369, 2.22 | 0.007 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.030 | 0.685 | -1.31, 1.37 | 0.966 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.017 | ||||
mhc_emotional | (Intercept) | 10.6 | 0.336 | 9.99, 11.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.352 | 0.475 | -0.579, 1.28 | 0.459 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.448 | 0.248 | -0.037, 0.933 | 0.072 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.059 | 0.359 | -0.763, 0.644 | 0.868 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
mhc_social | (Intercept) | 15.1 | 0.542 | 14.1, 16.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.000 | 0.767 | -1.50, 1.50 | 1.00 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.792 | 0.411 | -0.014, 1.60 | 0.055 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.420 | 0.595 | -0.746, 1.59 | 0.481 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.007 | ||||
mhc_psychological | (Intercept) | 21.6 | 0.628 | 20.3, 22.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.320 | 0.889 | -1.42, 2.06 | 0.719 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.17 | 0.457 | 0.275, 2.07 | 0.011 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.205 | 0.662 | -1.50, 1.09 | 0.757 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.006 | ||||
resilisnce | (Intercept) | 16.2 | 0.387 | 15.4, 16.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.760 | 0.548 | -0.313, 1.83 | 0.166 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.623 | 0.335 | -0.033, 1.28 | 0.064 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.523 | 0.484 | -0.427, 1.47 | 0.282 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.023 | ||||
social_provision | (Intercept) | 13.2 | 0.250 | 12.7, 13.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.744 | 0.354 | 0.051, 1.44 | 0.036 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.003 | 0.198 | -0.391, 0.384 | 0.986 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.353 | 0.287 | -0.209, 0.914 | 0.219 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.027 | ||||
els_value_living | (Intercept) | 16.8 | 0.284 | 16.2, 17.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.392 | 0.402 | -0.395, 1.18 | 0.330 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.378 | 0.221 | -0.055, 0.811 | 0.089 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.277 | 0.320 | -0.350, 0.904 | 0.388 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
els_life_fulfill | (Intercept) | 12.4 | 0.293 | 11.8, 13.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.696 | 0.415 | -0.117, 1.51 | 0.095 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.347 | 0.213 | -0.069, 0.764 | 0.104 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.159 | 0.308 | -0.445, 0.763 | 0.606 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.017 | ||||
els | (Intercept) | 29.2 | 0.537 | 28.1, 30.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.09 | 0.759 | -0.400, 2.58 | 0.153 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.725 | 0.371 | -0.002, 1.45 | 0.052 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.450 | 0.538 | -0.604, 1.50 | 0.404 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.017 | ||||
social_connect | (Intercept) | 27.9 | 0.820 | 26.3, 29.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.22 | 1.159 | -3.49, 1.06 | 0.295 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.849 | 0.600 | -2.02, 0.327 | 0.159 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.13 | 0.869 | -2.84, 0.572 | 0.194 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.015 | ||||
shs_agency | (Intercept) | 13.8 | 0.445 | 13.0, 14.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.01 | 0.629 | -0.224, 2.24 | 0.110 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.364 | 0.326 | -0.275, 1.00 | 0.266 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.497 | 0.472 | -0.428, 1.42 | 0.294 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.019 | ||||
shs_pathway | (Intercept) | 15.3 | 0.361 | 14.6, 16.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.01 | 0.510 | 0.009, 2.01 | 0.049 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.602 | 0.286 | 0.041, 1.16 | 0.037 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.203 | 0.415 | -0.610, 1.02 | 0.626 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.025 | ||||
shs | (Intercept) | 29.2 | 0.767 | 27.7, 30.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 2.02 | 1.084 | -0.109, 4.14 | 0.064 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.966 | 0.557 | -0.125, 2.06 | 0.084 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.709 | 0.807 | -0.873, 2.29 | 0.381 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.024 | ||||
esteem | (Intercept) | 12.8 | 0.142 | 12.5, 13.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.072 | 0.201 | -0.465, 0.321 | 0.720 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.132 | 0.152 | -0.430, 0.166 | 0.386 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.170 | 0.219 | -0.260, 0.600 | 0.439 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.001 | ||||
mlq_search | (Intercept) | 14.4 | 0.309 | 13.8, 15.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.720 | 0.436 | -0.135, 1.58 | 0.100 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.708 | 0.297 | 0.125, 1.29 | 0.018 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.811 | 0.430 | -1.65, 0.032 | 0.061 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
mlq_presence | (Intercept) | 13.2 | 0.378 | 12.4, 13.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.464 | 0.535 | -0.584, 1.51 | 0.386 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.617 | 0.318 | -0.006, 1.24 | 0.054 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.179 | 0.460 | -0.723, 1.08 | 0.697 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.011 | ||||
mlq | (Intercept) | 27.5 | 0.617 | 26.3, 28.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.18 | 0.872 | -0.526, 2.89 | 0.176 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.32 | 0.532 | 0.280, 2.37 | 0.014 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.617 | 0.770 | -2.13, 0.893 | 0.424 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
empower | (Intercept) | 18.8 | 0.404 | 18.1, 19.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.528 | 0.572 | -0.593, 1.65 | 0.357 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.882 | 0.317 | 0.260, 1.50 | 0.006 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.027 | 0.459 | -0.873, 0.927 | 0.952 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
ismi_resistance | (Intercept) | 14.4 | 0.222 | 13.9, 14.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.008 | 0.314 | -0.623, 0.607 | 0.980 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.216 | 0.224 | -0.222, 0.654 | 0.336 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.435 | 0.323 | -0.198, 1.07 | 0.180 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
ismi_discrimation | (Intercept) | 11.8 | 0.274 | 11.3, 12.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.088 | 0.387 | -0.847, 0.671 | 0.820 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.420 | 0.262 | -0.935, 0.094 | 0.111 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.382 | 0.379 | -1.13, 0.362 | 0.315 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
sss_affective | (Intercept) | 10.4 | 0.325 | 9.76, 11.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.224 | 0.459 | -0.676, 1.12 | 0.626 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.335 | 0.239 | -0.804, 0.133 | 0.162 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.584 | 0.346 | -1.26, 0.095 | 0.093 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
sss_behavior | (Intercept) | 10.2 | 0.333 | 9.52, 10.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.080 | 0.471 | -1.00, 0.842 | 0.865 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.490 | 0.248 | -0.975, -0.005 | 0.049 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.251 | 0.359 | -0.954, 0.452 | 0.486 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
sss_cognitive | (Intercept) | 8.71 | 0.335 | 8.06, 9.37 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.408 | 0.473 | -0.519, 1.34 | 0.389 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.250 | 0.245 | -0.730, 0.230 | 0.308 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.675 | 0.355 | -1.37, 0.021 | 0.059 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
sss | (Intercept) | 29.3 | 0.935 | 27.5, 31.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.552 | 1.323 | -2.04, 3.14 | 0.677 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.10 | 0.620 | -2.31, 0.119 | 0.078 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.45 | 0.898 | -3.22, 0.306 | 0.107 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval | |||||
Text
recovery_stage_a
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.33) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.32e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.20 (95% CI [2.99, 3.41], t(453) = 29.52, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.17], t(453) = -0.84, p = 0.404; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.14])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.29], t(453) = 0.23, p = 0.819; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.24])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.56], t(453) = 0.99, p = 0.320; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.46])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
recovery_stage_b
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.88 (95% CI [17.35, 18.41], t(453) = 66.54, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.82, 0.66], t(453) = -0.21, p = 0.833; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.22])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.62, 0.31], t(453) = -0.67, p = 0.504; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.10])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.02, 95% CI [0.35, 1.70], t(453) = 2.98, p = 0.003; Std. beta = 0.35, 95% CI [0.12, 0.57])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_confidence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.69 (95% CI [28.70, 30.67], t(453) = 59.11, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-1.06, 1.73], t(453) = 0.47, p = 0.636; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.31])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.69, 95% CI [-0.07, 1.45], t(453) = 1.79, p = 0.074; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.26])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.08, 95% CI [-0.03, 2.18], t(453) = 1.91, p = 0.056; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-4.69e-03, 0.39])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_willingness
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.61) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.25e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.62 (95% CI [11.27, 11.98], t(453) = 63.77, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.54], t(453) = 0.12, p = 0.901; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.27])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.37], t(453) = 0.26, p = 0.798; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.19])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.75], t(453) = 1.11, p = 0.269; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.37])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_goal
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.18 (95% CI [16.62, 17.75], t(453) = 59.25, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.46, 1.15], t(453) = 0.84, p = 0.402; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.36])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.89], t(453) = 1.66, p = 0.098; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.28])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.42, 95% CI [-0.28, 1.12], t(453) = 1.16, p = 0.245; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.35])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_reliance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.14 (95% CI [12.63, 13.66], t(453) = 50.03, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.91], t(453) = 0.50, p = 0.620; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.31])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.74], t(453) = 1.71, p = 0.088; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.25])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.87], t(453) = 1.04, p = 0.297; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.30])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_domination
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.57) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.95 (95% CI [9.53, 10.37], t(453) = 46.70, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-0.98, 0.20], t(453) = -1.30, p = 0.193; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.08])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.53], t(453) = 0.57, p = 0.568; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.22])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.77, 95% CI [0.17, 1.36], t(453) = 2.54, p = 0.011; Std. beta = 0.32, 95% CI [0.07, 0.57])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
symptom
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 31.50 (95% CI [29.78, 33.21], t(453) = 35.97, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.29, 95% CI [-3.71, 1.14], t(453) = -1.04, p = 0.298; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.12])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.44, 95% CI [-2.66, -0.22], t(453) = -2.31, p = 0.021; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.27, -0.02])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-1.97, 1.57], t(453) = -0.22, p = 0.823; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.16])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_work
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.56e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.06 (95% CI [21.26, 22.87], t(453) = 53.95, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -8.00e-03, 95% CI [-1.14, 1.13], t(453) = -0.01, p = 0.989; Std. beta = -1.75e-03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.25])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.43, 95% CI [-0.22, 1.09], t(453) = 1.30, p = 0.194; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.24])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.88, 1.01], t(453) = 0.13, p = 0.895; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.22])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_relationship
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.46e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 24.50 (95% CI [23.50, 25.51], t(453) = 47.80, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.84, 95% CI [-0.58, 2.26], t(453) = 1.16, p = 0.247; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.40])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.48, 95% CI [-0.31, 1.26], t(453) = 1.19, p = 0.235; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.22])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.89, 1.39], t(453) = 0.43, p = 0.665; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.24])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
satisfaction
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.66 (95% CI [18.41, 20.92], t(453) = 30.63, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.37, 95% CI [-0.41, 3.15], t(453) = 1.51, p = 0.132; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.44])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.30, 95% CI [0.37, 2.22], t(453) = 2.74, p = 0.006; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [0.05, 0.31])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-1.31, 1.37], t(453) = 0.04, p = 0.966; Std. beta = 4.12e-03, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.19])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_emotional
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.84e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.65 (95% CI [9.99, 11.31], t(453) = 31.71, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.58, 1.28], t(453) = 0.74, p = 0.459; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.34])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.93], t(453) = 1.81, p = 0.070; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.25])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.76, 0.64], t(453) = -0.17, p = 0.868; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.17])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_social
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.13e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.13 (95% CI [14.06, 16.19], t(453) = 27.89, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.06e-13, 95% CI [-1.50, 1.50], t(453) = -2.68e-13, p > .999; Std. beta = -1.83e-16, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.25])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.79, 95% CI [-0.01, 1.60], t(453) = 1.93, p = 0.054; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-2.31e-03, 0.27])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.42, 95% CI [-0.75, 1.59], t(453) = 0.71, p = 0.480; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.27])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_psychological
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.00e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.55 (95% CI [20.32, 22.78], t(453) = 34.30, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-1.42, 2.06], t(453) = 0.36, p = 0.719; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.30])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.17, 95% CI [0.28, 2.07], t(453) = 2.56, p = 0.010; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [0.04, 0.30])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-1.50, 1.09], t(453) = -0.31, p = 0.757; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.16])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
resilisnce
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.18 (95% CI [15.42, 16.93], t(453) = 41.78, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [-0.31, 1.83], t(453) = 1.39, p = 0.165; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.42])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.62, 95% CI [-0.03, 1.28], t(453) = 1.86, p = 0.063; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-7.53e-03, 0.29])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.52, 95% CI [-0.43, 1.47], t(453) = 1.08, p = 0.280; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.34])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_provision
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.17 (95% CI [12.68, 13.66], t(453) = 52.68, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [0.05, 1.44], t(453) = 2.10, p = 0.035; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [0.02, 0.51])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.43e-03, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.38], t(453) = -0.02, p = 0.986; Std. beta = -1.22e-03, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.14])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.91], t(453) = 1.23, p = 0.218; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.32])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_value_living
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.76 (95% CI [16.20, 17.32], t(453) = 59.02, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.40, 1.18], t(453) = 0.98, p = 0.329; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.37])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.81], t(453) = 1.71, p = 0.087; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.26])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.90], t(453) = 0.87, p = 0.387; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.29])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_life_fulfill
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.41 (95% CI [11.83, 12.98], t(453) = 42.28, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.70, 95% CI [-0.12, 1.51], t(453) = 1.68, p = 0.094; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.46])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.76], t(453) = 1.63, p = 0.102; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.23])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.76], t(453) = 0.52, p = 0.606; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.23])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.17 (95% CI [28.12, 30.22], t(453) = 54.35, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.09, 95% CI [-0.40, 2.58], t(453) = 1.43, p = 0.152; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.43])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-2.23e-03, 1.45], t(453) = 1.95, p = 0.051; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-3.74e-04, 0.24])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-0.60, 1.50], t(453) = 0.84, p = 0.403; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.25])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_connect
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.88 (95% CI [26.27, 29.49], t(453) = 34.01, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.22, 95% CI [-3.49, 1.06], t(453) = -1.05, p = 0.294; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.11])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.85, 95% CI [-2.02, 0.33], t(453) = -1.41, p = 0.157; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.04])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.13, 95% CI [-2.84, 0.57], t(453) = -1.30, p = 0.193; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.06])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_agency
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.84 (95% CI [12.97, 14.71], t(453) = 31.13, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [-0.22, 2.24], t(453) = 1.60, p = 0.109; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.45])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.28, 1.00], t(453) = 1.12, p = 0.265; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.20])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.50, 95% CI [-0.43, 1.42], t(453) = 1.05, p = 0.292; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.29])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_pathway
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.33 (95% CI [14.62, 16.03], t(453) = 42.52, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [8.70e-03, 2.01], t(453) = 1.98, p = 0.048; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [2.15e-03, 0.50])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.60, 95% CI [0.04, 1.16], t(453) = 2.10, p = 0.035; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [0.01, 0.29])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.61, 1.02], t(453) = 0.49, p = 0.625; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.25])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.17 (95% CI [27.67, 30.67], t(453) = 38.05, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.02, 95% CI [-0.11, 4.14], t(453) = 1.86, p = 0.063; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.48])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.97, 95% CI [-0.13, 2.06], t(453) = 1.73, p = 0.083; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.24])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.71, 95% CI [-0.87, 2.29], t(453) = 0.88, p = 0.380; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.27])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
esteem
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.48) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.56e-04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.80 (95% CI [12.52, 13.08], t(453) = 90.17, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.32], t(453) = -0.36, p = 0.720; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.20])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.17], t(453) = -0.87, p = 0.385; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.10])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.60], t(453) = 0.77, p = 0.439; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.38])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_search
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.58) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.90e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.36 (95% CI [13.76, 14.96], t(453) = 46.54, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.14, 1.58], t(453) = 1.65, p = 0.099; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.46])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.71, 95% CI [0.12, 1.29], t(453) = 2.38, p = 0.017; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [0.04, 0.37])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.81, 95% CI [-1.65, 0.03], t(453) = -1.88, p = 0.059; Std. beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.48, 9.33e-03])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_presence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.15 (95% CI [12.41, 13.89], t(453) = 34.80, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-0.58, 1.51], t(453) = 0.87, p = 0.385; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.36])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.62, 95% CI [-6.30e-03, 1.24], t(453) = 1.94, p = 0.052; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-1.49e-03, 0.29])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.72, 1.08], t(453) = 0.39, p = 0.697; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.26])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.92e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.51 (95% CI [26.30, 28.72], t(453) = 44.60, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.18, 95% CI [-0.53, 2.89], t(453) = 1.36, p = 0.175; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.42])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.32, 95% CI [0.28, 2.37], t(453) = 2.49, p = 0.013; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [0.04, 0.34])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.62, 95% CI [-2.13, 0.89], t(453) = -0.80, p = 0.423; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.13])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
empower
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.85 (95% CI [18.06, 19.64], t(453) = 46.60, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-0.59, 1.65], t(453) = 0.92, p = 0.356; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.37])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.88, 95% CI [0.26, 1.50], t(453) = 2.78, p = 0.005; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [0.06, 0.34])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.87, 0.93], t(453) = 0.06, p = 0.952; Std. beta = 6.13e-03, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.21])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_resistance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.55) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.36 (95% CI [13.93, 14.79], t(453) = 64.71, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -8.00e-03, 95% CI [-0.62, 0.61], t(453) = -0.03, p = 0.980; Std. beta = -3.24e-03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.25])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.65], t(453) = 0.96, p = 0.335; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.26])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.43, 95% CI [-0.20, 1.07], t(453) = 1.35, p = 0.178; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.43])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_discrimation
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.59) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.79 (95% CI [11.26, 12.33], t(453) = 43.06, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.85, 0.67], t(453) = -0.23, p = 0.820; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.22])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.42, 95% CI [-0.93, 0.09], t(453) = -1.60, p = 0.109; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.03])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.38, 95% CI [-1.13, 0.36], t(453) = -1.01, p = 0.314; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.12])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_affective
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.77e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.40 (95% CI [9.76, 11.04], t(453) = 32.05, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.68, 1.12], t(453) = 0.49, p = 0.626; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.31])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.34, 95% CI [-0.80, 0.13], t(453) = -1.40, p = 0.161; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.04])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.58, 95% CI [-1.26, 0.10], t(453) = -1.69, p = 0.092; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.03])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_behavior
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.51e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.18 (95% CI [9.52, 10.83], t(453) = 30.58, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-1.00, 0.84], t(453) = -0.17, p = 0.865; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.23])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.49, 95% CI [-0.97, -4.56e-03], t(453) = -1.98, p = 0.048; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.26, -1.22e-03])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-0.95, 0.45], t(453) = -0.70, p = 0.485; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.12])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_cognitive
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.13e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.71 (95% CI [8.06, 9.37], t(453) = 26.04, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.52, 1.34], t(453) = 0.86, p = 0.388; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.36])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-0.73, 0.23], t(453) = -1.02, p = 0.307; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.06])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.67, 95% CI [-1.37, 0.02], t(453) = -1.90, p = 0.057; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.37, 5.64e-03])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.81) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.52e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.29 (95% CI [27.46, 31.12], t(453) = 31.32, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-2.04, 3.14], t(453) = 0.42, p = 0.676; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.30])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.10, 95% CI [-2.31, 0.12], t(453) = -1.77, p = 0.077; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.01])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.45, 95% CI [-3.22, 0.31], t(453) = -1.62, p = 0.105; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.03])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
Likelihood ratio tests
outcome | model | npar | AIC | BIC | logLik | deviance | Chisq | Df | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | null | 3 | 1,459.679 | 1,472.066 | -726.839 | 1,453.679 | |||
recovery_stage_a | random | 6 | 1,462.910 | 1,487.684 | -725.455 | 1,450.910 | 2.769 | 3 | 0.429 |
recovery_stage_b | null | 3 | 2,212.837 | 2,225.224 | -1,103.419 | 2,206.837 | |||
recovery_stage_b | random | 6 | 2,205.695 | 2,230.469 | -1,096.847 | 2,193.695 | 13.142 | 3 | 0.004 |
ras_confidence | null | 3 | 2,750.026 | 2,762.413 | -1,372.013 | 2,744.026 | |||
ras_confidence | random | 6 | 2,733.583 | 2,758.357 | -1,360.791 | 2,721.583 | 22.443 | 3 | 0.000 |
ras_willingness | null | 3 | 1,863.303 | 1,875.690 | -928.651 | 1,857.303 | |||
ras_willingness | random | 6 | 1,865.715 | 1,890.489 | -926.857 | 1,853.715 | 3.588 | 3 | 0.310 |
ras_goal | null | 3 | 2,271.955 | 2,284.342 | -1,132.978 | 2,265.955 | |||
ras_goal | random | 6 | 2,263.616 | 2,288.390 | -1,125.808 | 2,251.616 | 14.339 | 3 | 0.002 |
ras_reliance | null | 3 | 2,141.211 | 2,153.598 | -1,067.605 | 2,135.211 | |||
ras_reliance | random | 6 | 2,134.382 | 2,159.156 | -1,061.191 | 2,122.382 | 12.829 | 3 | 0.005 |
ras_domination | null | 3 | 2,037.611 | 2,049.998 | -1,015.805 | 2,031.611 | |||
ras_domination | random | 6 | 2,027.190 | 2,051.964 | -1,007.595 | 2,015.190 | 16.421 | 3 | 0.001 |
symptom | null | 3 | 3,220.186 | 3,232.574 | -1,607.093 | 3,214.186 | |||
symptom | random | 6 | 3,213.571 | 3,238.345 | -1,600.785 | 3,201.571 | 12.616 | 3 | 0.006 |
slof_work | null | 3 | 2,561.481 | 2,573.868 | -1,277.741 | 2,555.481 | |||
slof_work | random | 6 | 2,563.761 | 2,588.535 | -1,275.880 | 2,551.761 | 3.720 | 3 | 0.293 |
slof_relationship | null | 3 | 2,757.403 | 2,769.790 | -1,375.701 | 2,751.403 | |||
slof_relationship | random | 6 | 2,757.173 | 2,781.947 | -1,372.587 | 2,745.173 | 6.230 | 3 | 0.101 |
satisfaction | null | 3 | 2,951.941 | 2,964.328 | -1,472.970 | 2,945.941 | |||
satisfaction | random | 6 | 2,941.336 | 2,966.110 | -1,464.668 | 2,929.336 | 16.605 | 3 | 0.001 |
mhc_emotional | null | 3 | 2,346.821 | 2,359.208 | -1,170.410 | 2,340.821 | |||
mhc_emotional | random | 6 | 2,346.879 | 2,371.653 | -1,167.439 | 2,334.879 | 5.942 | 3 | 0.114 |
mhc_social | null | 3 | 2,802.403 | 2,814.790 | -1,398.202 | 2,796.403 | |||
mhc_social | random | 6 | 2,797.069 | 2,821.843 | -1,392.535 | 2,785.069 | 11.334 | 3 | 0.010 |
mhc_psychological | null | 3 | 2,921.759 | 2,934.146 | -1,457.879 | 2,915.759 | |||
mhc_psychological | random | 6 | 2,917.323 | 2,942.097 | -1,452.661 | 2,905.323 | 10.436 | 3 | 0.015 |
resilisnce | null | 3 | 2,545.491 | 2,557.878 | -1,269.746 | 2,539.491 | |||
resilisnce | random | 6 | 2,534.079 | 2,558.854 | -1,261.040 | 2,522.079 | 17.412 | 3 | 0.001 |
social_provision | null | 3 | 2,105.558 | 2,117.945 | -1,049.779 | 2,099.558 | |||
social_provision | random | 6 | 2,101.571 | 2,126.345 | -1,044.786 | 2,089.571 | 9.987 | 3 | 0.019 |
els_value_living | null | 3 | 2,219.049 | 2,231.436 | -1,106.525 | 2,213.049 | |||
els_value_living | random | 6 | 2,212.665 | 2,237.439 | -1,100.332 | 2,200.665 | 12.385 | 3 | 0.006 |
els_life_fulfill | null | 3 | 2,222.037 | 2,234.424 | -1,108.019 | 2,216.037 | |||
els_life_fulfill | random | 6 | 2,216.692 | 2,241.466 | -1,102.346 | 2,204.692 | 11.345 | 3 | 0.010 |
els | null | 3 | 2,763.178 | 2,775.566 | -1,378.589 | 2,757.178 | |||
els | random | 6 | 2,753.613 | 2,778.387 | -1,370.806 | 2,741.613 | 15.566 | 3 | 0.001 |
social_connect | null | 3 | 3,171.555 | 3,183.943 | -1,582.778 | 3,165.555 | |||
social_connect | random | 6 | 3,163.575 | 3,188.349 | -1,575.787 | 3,151.575 | 13.981 | 3 | 0.003 |
shs_agency | null | 3 | 2,607.769 | 2,620.156 | -1,300.884 | 2,601.769 | |||
shs_agency | random | 6 | 2,602.252 | 2,627.026 | -1,295.126 | 2,590.252 | 11.517 | 3 | 0.009 |
shs_pathway | null | 3 | 2,449.315 | 2,461.702 | -1,221.657 | 2,443.315 | |||
shs_pathway | random | 6 | 2,438.939 | 2,463.714 | -1,213.470 | 2,426.939 | 16.376 | 3 | 0.001 |
shs | null | 3 | 3,109.029 | 3,121.417 | -1,551.515 | 3,103.029 | |||
shs | random | 6 | 3,099.185 | 3,123.959 | -1,543.593 | 3,087.185 | 15.844 | 3 | 0.001 |
esteem | null | 3 | 1,674.803 | 1,687.190 | -834.402 | 1,668.803 | |||
esteem | random | 6 | 1,679.985 | 1,704.759 | -833.992 | 1,667.985 | 0.818 | 3 | 0.845 |
mlq_search | null | 3 | 2,362.069 | 2,374.456 | -1,178.035 | 2,356.069 | |||
mlq_search | random | 6 | 2,361.491 | 2,386.266 | -1,174.746 | 2,349.491 | 6.578 | 3 | 0.087 |
mlq_presence | null | 3 | 2,506.885 | 2,519.272 | -1,250.443 | 2,500.885 | |||
mlq_presence | random | 6 | 2,502.474 | 2,527.249 | -1,245.237 | 2,490.474 | 10.411 | 3 | 0.015 |
mlq | null | 3 | 2,963.857 | 2,976.244 | -1,478.928 | 2,957.857 | |||
mlq | random | 6 | 2,960.949 | 2,985.724 | -1,474.475 | 2,948.949 | 8.907 | 3 | 0.031 |
empower | null | 3 | 2,549.606 | 2,561.994 | -1,271.803 | 2,543.606 | |||
empower | random | 6 | 2,539.918 | 2,564.692 | -1,263.959 | 2,527.918 | 15.689 | 3 | 0.001 |
ismi_resistance | null | 3 | 2,075.314 | 2,087.701 | -1,034.657 | 2,069.314 | |||
ismi_resistance | random | 6 | 2,072.370 | 2,097.144 | -1,030.185 | 2,060.370 | 8.944 | 3 | 0.030 |
ismi_discrimation | null | 3 | 2,255.351 | 2,267.738 | -1,124.675 | 2,249.351 | |||
ismi_discrimation | random | 6 | 2,249.929 | 2,274.704 | -1,118.965 | 2,237.929 | 11.421 | 3 | 0.010 |
sss_affective | null | 3 | 2,324.470 | 2,336.857 | -1,159.235 | 2,318.470 | |||
sss_affective | random | 6 | 2,315.370 | 2,340.144 | -1,151.685 | 2,303.370 | 15.100 | 3 | 0.002 |
sss_behavior | null | 3 | 2,347.860 | 2,360.247 | -1,170.930 | 2,341.860 | |||
sss_behavior | random | 6 | 2,341.834 | 2,366.609 | -1,164.917 | 2,329.834 | 12.026 | 3 | 0.007 |
sss_cognitive | null | 3 | 2,348.762 | 2,361.149 | -1,171.381 | 2,342.762 | |||
sss_cognitive | random | 6 | 2,340.925 | 2,365.699 | -1,164.462 | 2,328.925 | 13.837 | 3 | 0.003 |
sss | null | 3 | 3,259.482 | 3,271.869 | -1,626.741 | 3,253.482 | |||
sss | random | 6 | 3,247.482 | 3,272.256 | -1,617.741 | 3,235.482 | 18.000 | 3 | 0.000 |
Post hoc analysis
Table
outcome | time | control | treatment | between | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | estimate | within es | n | estimate | within es | p | es | ||
recovery_stage_a | 1st | 125 | 3.20 ± 1.21 | 125 | 3.07 ± 1.21 | 0.404 | 0.129 | ||
recovery_stage_a | 2nd | 110 | 3.23 ± 1.20 | -0.030 | 99 | 3.29 ± 1.20 | -0.220 | 0.719 | -0.060 |
recovery_stage_b | 1st | 125 | 17.88 ± 3.00 | 125 | 17.80 ± 3.00 | 0.833 | 0.045 | ||
recovery_stage_b | 2nd | 110 | 17.72 ± 2.93 | 0.089 | 99 | 18.67 ± 2.87 | -0.487 | 0.019 | -0.531 |
ras_confidence | 1st | 125 | 29.69 ± 5.62 | 125 | 30.02 ± 5.62 | 0.637 | -0.116 | ||
ras_confidence | 2nd | 110 | 30.38 ± 5.43 | -0.239 | 99 | 31.79 ± 5.29 | -0.610 | 0.058 | -0.486 |
ras_willingness | 1st | 125 | 11.62 ± 2.04 | 125 | 11.66 ± 2.04 | 0.901 | -0.025 | ||
ras_willingness | 2nd | 110 | 11.67 ± 1.99 | -0.034 | 99 | 11.97 ± 1.96 | -0.247 | 0.270 | -0.238 |
ras_goal | 1st | 125 | 17.18 ± 3.24 | 125 | 17.53 ± 3.24 | 0.402 | -0.186 | ||
ras_goal | 2nd | 110 | 17.59 ± 3.15 | -0.221 | 99 | 18.35 ± 3.09 | -0.446 | 0.079 | -0.411 |
ras_reliance | 1st | 125 | 13.14 ± 2.94 | 125 | 13.33 ± 2.94 | 0.621 | -0.123 | ||
ras_reliance | 2nd | 110 | 13.49 ± 2.84 | -0.229 | 99 | 13.97 ± 2.77 | -0.431 | 0.210 | -0.325 |
ras_domination | 1st | 125 | 9.95 ± 2.38 | 125 | 9.56 ± 2.38 | 0.194 | 0.249 | ||
ras_domination | 2nd | 110 | 10.07 ± 2.34 | -0.076 | 99 | 10.45 ± 2.30 | -0.564 | 0.245 | -0.238 |
symptom | 1st | 125 | 31.50 ± 9.79 | 125 | 30.21 ± 9.79 | 0.299 | 0.277 | ||
symptom | 2nd | 110 | 30.06 ± 9.43 | 0.309 | 99 | 28.57 ± 9.16 | 0.352 | 0.248 | 0.320 |
slof_work | 1st | 125 | 22.06 ± 4.57 | 125 | 22.06 ± 4.57 | 0.989 | 0.003 | ||
slof_work | 2nd | 110 | 22.50 ± 4.44 | -0.174 | 99 | 22.55 ± 4.33 | -0.199 | 0.927 | -0.022 |
slof_relationship | 1st | 125 | 24.50 ± 5.73 | 125 | 25.34 ± 5.73 | 0.247 | -0.280 | ||
slof_relationship | 2nd | 110 | 24.98 ± 5.55 | -0.159 | 99 | 26.07 ± 5.41 | -0.243 | 0.151 | -0.364 |
satisfaction | 1st | 125 | 19.66 ± 7.18 | 125 | 21.03 ± 7.18 | 0.133 | -0.387 | ||
satisfaction | 2nd | 110 | 20.96 ± 6.93 | -0.367 | 99 | 22.36 ± 6.74 | -0.375 | 0.140 | -0.396 |
mhc_emotional | 1st | 125 | 10.65 ± 3.75 | 125 | 11.00 ± 3.75 | 0.459 | -0.190 | ||
mhc_emotional | 2nd | 110 | 11.10 ± 3.62 | -0.242 | 99 | 11.39 ± 3.52 | -0.210 | 0.555 | -0.158 |
mhc_social | 1st | 125 | 15.13 ± 6.06 | 125 | 15.13 ± 6.06 | 1.000 | 0.000 | ||
mhc_social | 2nd | 110 | 15.92 ± 5.86 | -0.258 | 99 | 16.34 ± 5.71 | -0.395 | 0.600 | -0.137 |
mhc_psychological | 1st | 125 | 21.55 ± 7.03 | 125 | 21.87 ± 7.03 | 0.719 | -0.094 | ||
mhc_psychological | 2nd | 110 | 22.72 ± 6.78 | -0.343 | 99 | 22.84 ± 6.59 | -0.283 | 0.901 | -0.034 |
resilisnce | 1st | 125 | 16.18 ± 4.33 | 125 | 16.94 ± 4.33 | 0.166 | -0.303 | ||
resilisnce | 2nd | 110 | 16.80 ± 4.21 | -0.249 | 99 | 18.08 ± 4.13 | -0.457 | 0.027 | -0.511 |
social_provision | 1st | 125 | 13.17 ± 2.79 | 125 | 13.91 ± 2.79 | 0.036 | -0.503 | ||
social_provision | 2nd | 110 | 13.16 ± 2.71 | 0.002 | 99 | 14.26 ± 2.64 | -0.236 | 0.003 | -0.741 |
els_value_living | 1st | 125 | 16.76 ± 3.18 | 125 | 17.15 ± 3.18 | 0.330 | -0.237 | ||
els_value_living | 2nd | 110 | 17.14 ± 3.07 | -0.229 | 99 | 17.81 ± 3.00 | -0.396 | 0.112 | -0.405 |
els_life_fulfill | 1st | 125 | 12.41 ± 3.28 | 125 | 13.10 ± 3.28 | 0.095 | -0.438 | ||
els_life_fulfill | 2nd | 110 | 12.76 ± 3.16 | -0.219 | 99 | 13.61 ± 3.07 | -0.319 | 0.049 | -0.539 |
els | 1st | 125 | 29.17 ± 6.00 | 125 | 30.26 ± 6.00 | 0.153 | -0.393 | ||
els | 2nd | 110 | 29.89 ± 5.77 | -0.262 | 99 | 31.43 ± 5.60 | -0.424 | 0.052 | -0.555 |
social_connect | 1st | 125 | 27.88 ± 9.17 | 125 | 26.66 ± 9.17 | 0.295 | 0.271 | ||
social_connect | 2nd | 110 | 27.03 ± 8.84 | 0.189 | 99 | 24.68 ± 8.60 | 0.442 | 0.053 | 0.524 |
shs_agency | 1st | 125 | 13.84 ± 4.97 | 125 | 14.85 ± 4.97 | 0.110 | -0.414 | ||
shs_agency | 2nd | 110 | 14.20 ± 4.80 | -0.149 | 99 | 15.71 ± 4.66 | -0.354 | 0.022 | -0.618 |
shs_pathway | 1st | 125 | 15.33 ± 4.03 | 125 | 16.34 ± 4.03 | 0.049 | -0.471 | ||
shs_pathway | 2nd | 110 | 15.93 ± 3.90 | -0.281 | 99 | 17.14 ± 3.81 | -0.376 | 0.024 | -0.565 |
shs | 1st | 125 | 29.17 ± 8.57 | 125 | 31.18 ± 8.57 | 0.064 | -0.485 | ||
shs | 2nd | 110 | 30.13 ± 8.27 | -0.232 | 99 | 32.86 ± 8.03 | -0.403 | 0.016 | -0.655 |
esteem | 1st | 125 | 12.80 ± 1.59 | 125 | 12.73 ± 1.59 | 0.720 | 0.063 | ||
esteem | 2nd | 110 | 12.67 ± 1.57 | 0.115 | 99 | 12.77 ± 1.55 | -0.033 | 0.650 | -0.086 |
mlq_search | 1st | 125 | 14.36 ± 3.45 | 125 | 15.08 ± 3.45 | 0.100 | -0.322 | ||
mlq_search | 2nd | 110 | 15.07 ± 3.38 | -0.317 | 99 | 14.98 ± 3.33 | 0.046 | 0.845 | 0.041 |
mlq_presence | 1st | 125 | 13.15 ± 4.23 | 125 | 13.62 ± 4.23 | 0.386 | -0.195 | ||
mlq_presence | 2nd | 110 | 13.77 ± 4.11 | -0.259 | 99 | 14.41 ± 4.02 | -0.334 | 0.254 | -0.270 |
mlq | 1st | 125 | 27.51 ± 6.90 | 125 | 28.70 ± 6.90 | 0.176 | -0.297 | ||
mlq | 2nd | 110 | 28.84 ± 6.71 | -0.332 | 99 | 29.40 ± 6.57 | -0.177 | 0.538 | -0.142 |
empower | 1st | 125 | 18.85 ± 4.52 | 125 | 19.38 ± 4.52 | 0.357 | -0.223 | ||
empower | 2nd | 110 | 19.73 ± 4.38 | -0.372 | 99 | 20.29 ± 4.27 | -0.383 | 0.354 | -0.234 |
ismi_resistance | 1st | 125 | 14.36 ± 2.48 | 125 | 14.35 ± 2.48 | 0.980 | 0.005 | ||
ismi_resistance | 2nd | 110 | 14.58 ± 2.44 | -0.128 | 99 | 15.00 ± 2.41 | -0.387 | 0.204 | -0.254 |
ismi_discrimation | 1st | 125 | 11.79 ± 3.06 | 125 | 11.70 ± 3.06 | 0.820 | 0.045 | ||
ismi_discrimation | 2nd | 110 | 11.37 ± 3.00 | 0.213 | 99 | 10.90 ± 2.95 | 0.407 | 0.255 | 0.238 |
sss_affective | 1st | 125 | 10.40 ± 3.63 | 125 | 10.62 ± 3.63 | 0.626 | -0.125 | ||
sss_affective | 2nd | 110 | 10.06 ± 3.50 | 0.188 | 99 | 9.70 ± 3.41 | 0.515 | 0.452 | 0.202 |
sss_behavior | 1st | 125 | 10.18 ± 3.72 | 125 | 10.10 ± 3.72 | 0.865 | 0.043 | ||
sss_behavior | 2nd | 110 | 9.69 ± 3.59 | 0.265 | 99 | 9.36 ± 3.49 | 0.400 | 0.501 | 0.179 |
sss_cognitive | 1st | 125 | 8.71 ± 3.74 | 125 | 9.12 ± 3.74 | 0.389 | -0.223 | ||
sss_cognitive | 2nd | 110 | 8.46 ± 3.61 | 0.137 | 99 | 8.20 ± 3.51 | 0.505 | 0.589 | 0.146 |
sss | 1st | 125 | 29.29 ± 10.46 | 125 | 29.84 ± 10.46 | 0.677 | -0.119 | ||
sss | 2nd | 110 | 28.19 ± 10.04 | 0.237 | 99 | 27.29 ± 9.73 | 0.552 | 0.510 | 0.195 |
Between group
recovery_stage_a
1st
t(414.42) = -0.84, p = 0.404, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-0.43 to 0.17)
2st
t(435.94) = 0.36, p = 0.719, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-0.27 to 0.39)
recovery_stage_b
1st
t(332.02) = -0.21, p = 0.833, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-0.83 to 0.67)
2st
t(372.56) = 2.35, p = 0.019, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (0.15 to 1.73)
ras_confidence
1st
t(310.32) = 0.47, p = 0.637, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.06 to 1.73)
2st
t(347.57) = 1.90, p = 0.058, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.05 to 2.87)
ras_willingness
1st
t(341.94) = 0.12, p = 0.901, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.48 to 0.54)
2st
t(382.59) = 1.10, p = 0.270, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.24 to 0.84)
ras_goal
1st
t(325.56) = 0.84, p = 0.402, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.46 to 1.15)
2st
t(365.57) = 1.76, p = 0.079, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.09 to 1.61)
ras_reliance
1st
t(308.68) = 0.50, p = 0.621, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.55 to 0.92)
2st
t(345.50) = 1.25, p = 0.210, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.28 to 1.25)
ras_domination
1st
t(354.77) = -1.30, p = 0.194, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-0.98 to 0.20)
2st
t(394.44) = 1.17, p = 0.245, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.26 to 1.01)
symptom
1st
t(299.86) = -1.04, p = 0.299, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-3.72 to 1.15)
2st
t(333.90) = -1.16, p = 0.248, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-4.02 to 1.04)
slof_work
1st
t(318.19) = -0.01, p = 0.989, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-1.15 to 1.13)
2st
t(357.15) = 0.09, p = 0.927, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-1.14 to 1.25)
slof_relationship
1st
t(312.22) = 1.16, p = 0.247, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.59 to 2.27)
2st
t(349.93) = 1.44, p = 0.151, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.40 to 2.58)
satisfaction
1st
t(303.99) = 1.51, p = 0.133, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.42 to 3.15)
2st
t(339.43) = 1.48, p = 0.140, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-0.46 to 3.26)
mhc_emotional
1st
t(304.12) = 0.74, p = 0.459, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.58 to 1.29)
2st
t(339.60) = 0.59, p = 0.555, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.68 to 1.27)
mhc_social
1st
t(307.61) = -0.00, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-1.51 to 1.51)
2st
t(344.13) = 0.52, p = 0.600, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.15 to 2.00)
mhc_psychological
1st
t(302.49) = 0.36, p = 0.719, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.43 to 2.07)
2st
t(337.44) = 0.12, p = 0.901, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-1.70 to 1.93)
resilisnce
1st
t(328.22) = 1.39, p = 0.166, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.32 to 1.84)
2st
t(368.49) = 2.22, p = 0.027, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (0.15 to 2.42)
social_provision
1st
t(313.75) = 2.10, p = 0.036, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (0.05 to 1.44)
2st
t(351.81) = 2.96, p = 0.003, Cohen d = -0.74, 95% CI (0.37 to 1.82)
els_value_living
1st
t(311.31) = 0.98, p = 0.330, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.40 to 1.18)
2st
t(348.81) = 1.59, p = 0.112, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-0.16 to 1.50)
els_life_fulfill
1st
t(301.96) = 1.68, p = 0.095, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-0.12 to 1.51)
2st
t(336.73) = 1.98, p = 0.049, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (0.01 to 1.70)
els
1st
t(296.66) = 1.43, p = 0.153, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.41 to 2.58)
2st
t(329.48) = 1.95, p = 0.052, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-0.01 to 3.09)
social_connect
1st
t(303.21) = -1.05, p = 0.295, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-3.50 to 1.07)
2st
t(338.39) = -1.95, p = 0.053, Cohen d = 0.52, 95% CI (-4.72 to 0.03)
shs_agency
1st
t(303.36) = 1.60, p = 0.110, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.23 to 2.25)
2st
t(338.59) = 2.30, p = 0.022, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (0.22 to 2.79)
shs_pathway
1st
t(314.25) = 1.98, p = 0.049, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (0.00 to 2.01)
2st
t(352.42) = 2.27, p = 0.024, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (0.16 to 2.26)
shs
1st
t(302.26) = 1.86, p = 0.064, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-0.12 to 4.15)
2st
t(337.13) = 2.41, p = 0.016, Cohen d = -0.66, 95% CI (0.51 to 4.94)
esteem
1st
t(377.62) = -0.36, p = 0.720, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-0.47 to 0.32)
2st
t(412.70) = 0.45, p = 0.650, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.33 to 0.52)
mlq_search
1st
t(350.65) = 1.65, p = 0.100, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.14 to 1.58)
2st
t(390.76) = -0.20, p = 0.845, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.00 to 0.82)
mlq_presence
1st
t(323.39) = 0.87, p = 0.386, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.59 to 1.52)
2st
t(363.14) = 1.14, p = 0.254, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.46 to 1.75)
mlq
1st
t(327.90) = 1.36, p = 0.176, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.53 to 2.90)
2st
t(368.15) = 0.62, p = 0.538, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.24 to 2.38)
empower
1st
t(312.35) = 0.92, p = 0.357, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.60 to 1.65)
2st
t(350.10) = 0.93, p = 0.354, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.62 to 1.73)
ismi_resistance
1st
t(361.26) = -0.03, p = 0.980, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-0.63 to 0.61)
2st
t(399.96) = 1.27, p = 0.204, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.23 to 1.09)
ismi_discrimation
1st
t(349.24) = -0.23, p = 0.820, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.85 to 0.67)
2st
t(389.48) = -1.14, p = 0.255, Cohen d = 0.24, 95% CI (-1.28 to 0.34)
sss_affective
1st
t(304.03) = 0.49, p = 0.626, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.68 to 1.13)
2st
t(339.48) = -0.75, p = 0.452, Cohen d = 0.20, 95% CI (-1.30 to 0.58)
sss_behavior
1st
t(305.26) = -0.17, p = 0.865, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.01 to 0.85)
2st
t(341.09) = -0.67, p = 0.501, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-1.30 to 0.63)
sss_cognitive
1st
t(303.29) = 0.86, p = 0.389, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.52 to 1.34)
2st
t(338.50) = -0.54, p = 0.589, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-1.24 to 0.70)
sss
1st
t(292.34) = 0.42, p = 0.677, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-2.05 to 3.15)
2st
t(323.34) = -0.66, p = 0.510, Cohen d = 0.20, 95% CI (-3.59 to 1.79)
Within treatment group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(234.36) = 1.60, p = 0.221, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.05 to 0.49)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(221.86) = 3.49, p = 0.001, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (0.38 to 1.35)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(218.41) = 4.35, p = 0.000, Cohen d = -0.61, 95% CI (0.97 to 2.57)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(223.39) = 1.77, p = 0.155, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.03 to 0.66)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(220.85) = 3.19, p = 0.003, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (0.32 to 1.33)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(218.14) = 3.07, p = 0.005, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (0.23 to 1.06)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(225.33) = 4.06, p = 0.000, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (0.46 to 1.32)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(216.67) = -2.51, p = 0.026, Cohen d = 0.35, 95% CI (-2.93 to -0.35)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(219.68) = 1.42, p = 0.313, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.19 to 1.18)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(218.72) = 1.73, p = 0.169, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.10 to 1.56)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(217.36) = 2.67, p = 0.016, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (0.35 to 2.30)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(217.38) = 1.50, p = 0.272, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.12 to 0.90)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(217.96) = 2.81, p = 0.011, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (0.36 to 2.06)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(217.11) = 2.02, p = 0.090, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (0.02 to 1.91)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(221.27) = 3.27, p = 0.002, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (0.46 to 1.84)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(218.97) = 1.69, p = 0.187, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.06 to 0.76)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(218.57) = 2.83, p = 0.010, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (0.20 to 1.11)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(217.02) = 2.27, p = 0.048, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (0.07 to 0.95)
els
1st vs 2st
t(216.13) = 3.02, p = 0.006, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (0.41 to 1.94)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(217.23) = -3.15, p = 0.004, Cohen d = 0.44, 95% CI (-3.22 to -0.74)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(217.26) = 2.52, p = 0.025, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (0.19 to 1.53)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(219.05) = 2.68, p = 0.016, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (0.21 to 1.40)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(217.07) = 2.87, p = 0.009, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (0.52 to 2.83)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(228.73) = 0.24, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.27 to 0.35)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(224.71) = -0.33, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-0.72 to 0.51)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(220.51) = 2.39, p = 0.035, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (0.14 to 1.45)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(221.22) = 1.27, p = 0.412, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.39 to 1.80)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(218.74) = 2.74, p = 0.013, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (0.25 to 1.56)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(226.30) = 2.79, p = 0.011, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (0.19 to 1.11)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(224.50) = -2.93, p = 0.008, Cohen d = 0.41, 95% CI (-1.34 to -0.26)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(217.37) = -3.67, p = 0.001, Cohen d = 0.51, 95% CI (-1.41 to -0.42)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(217.57) = -2.85, p = 0.010, Cohen d = 0.40, 95% CI (-1.25 to -0.23)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(217.25) = -3.60, p = 0.001, Cohen d = 0.51, 95% CI (-1.43 to -0.42)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(215.38) = -3.92, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 0.55, 95% CI (-3.83 to -1.27)
Within control group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(223.86) = 0.23, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.23 to 0.29)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(215.80) = -0.67, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-0.63 to 0.31)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(213.71) = 1.79, p = 0.151, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.07 to 1.46)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(216.74) = 0.26, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.29 to 0.38)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(215.19) = 1.65, p = 0.199, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.08 to 0.90)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(213.54) = 1.71, p = 0.178, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.05 to 0.74)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(217.95) = 0.57, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.29 to 0.53)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(212.66) = -2.31, p = 0.044, Cohen d = 0.31, 95% CI (-2.66 to -0.21)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(214.48) = 1.30, p = 0.391, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.22 to 1.09)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(213.89) = 1.19, p = 0.473, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.31 to 1.27)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(213.08) = 2.74, p = 0.013, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (0.36 to 2.23)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(213.09) = 1.81, p = 0.144, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.04 to 0.94)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(213.44) = 1.93, p = 0.111, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.02 to 1.60)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(212.93) = 2.56, p = 0.022, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (0.27 to 2.07)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(215.44) = 1.86, p = 0.128, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.04 to 1.28)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(214.04) = -0.02, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-0.39 to 0.39)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(213.80) = 1.71, p = 0.178, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.06 to 0.81)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(212.88) = 1.63, p = 0.208, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.07 to 0.77)
els
1st vs 2st
t(212.34) = 1.95, p = 0.104, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.01 to 1.46)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(213.00) = -1.41, p = 0.317, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-2.03 to 0.33)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(213.02) = 1.12, p = 0.532, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.28 to 1.01)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(214.09) = 2.10, p = 0.073, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (0.04 to 1.17)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(212.91) = 1.73, p = 0.169, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.13 to 2.06)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(220.12) = -0.87, p = 0.772, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-0.43 to 0.17)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(217.57) = 2.38, p = 0.037, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (0.12 to 1.29)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(214.98) = 1.94, p = 0.107, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.01 to 1.24)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(215.41) = 2.49, p = 0.027, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (0.27 to 2.37)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(213.91) = 2.78, p = 0.012, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (0.26 to 1.51)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(218.56) = 0.96, p = 0.672, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.22 to 0.66)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(217.43) = -1.60, p = 0.221, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-0.94 to 0.10)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(213.08) = -1.40, p = 0.325, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-0.81 to 0.14)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(213.20) = -1.98, p = 0.098, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-0.98 to -0.00)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(213.01) = -1.02, p = 0.617, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-0.73 to 0.23)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(211.90) = -1.77, p = 0.157, Cohen d = 0.24, 95% CI (-2.32 to 0.13)